Elliot Sober has recently attempted to reformulate and defend a standard objection to fine-tuning arguments, the objection from the "weak anthropic principle". The key to his reformulated defense is his likelihoodist epistemology conjoined to a well-known "fishnet analogy". Although recent rebuttals from Weisberg and Monton fall short of exposing the flaws in Sober’s objection, I show that Sober’s likelihoodist epistemology and analogy serve instead to undermine weak anthropic principles and objections based upon them.